apologia

In 1510, the young Augustinian monk Martin Luther was sent to Rome on an errand for his order. He'd dreamed all his life of visiting the Eternal City where Saints Peter and Paul had preached and been martyred, Paul beheaded and Peter crucified upside down in Nero's circus. He was thrilled at the thought of praying and celebrating mass in the great churches of Rome. Instead, as historian Heiko Oberman writes:

Later he remembered clearly the shock and horror he had felt in Rome upon hearing for the first time in his life flagrant blasphemies uttered in public. He was deeply shocked by the casual mockery of saints and everything he held sacred. He could not laugh when he heard priests joking about the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Maybe you've heard the story of how this experience nearly destroyed Luther's faith in the Church. And if you're Catholic, maybe you've been tempted to dismiss the story as so much anti-Catholic propaganda. Except that Catholics at the time admit that the Church's hierarchy was in moral shambles.For instance, the humanist priest Erasmus spoke of his own experiences in Rome:

With my own ears I heard the most loathsome blasphemies against Christ and his apostles. Many acquaintances of mine have heard priests of the curia uttering disgusting words so loudly, even during mass, that all around them could hear it.

No. It's true. And it wasn't only the priests.

In the late Middle Ages bishops were mainly drawn from the nobility, and (very often) not because they possessed any spiritual qualifications, but because they could purchase their positions. There are all sorts of examples of wealthy families gaining control of ecclesiastical affairs in a particular area and ruling there for years and years. Often these bishops didn’t even reside in the dioceses they ruled. Apparently they viewed their "realm" primarily as a source of income -- income they could use to pursue their political ambitions or spend on gambling and other entertainments. Certainly, some were shining lights. But many were not.For instance, by the time Albert of Brandenberg was 23 years of age, he already held the sees of Magdeburg and Halberstadt and wanted the archbishopric of Mainz as well. He needed money to pay the installation fees and knew he would also have to pay pope Leo X for the irregularity of holding three sees simultaneously. One historian describes the situation:

The negotiations of Albert with the pope were conducted through the German banking house of Fugger, which had a monopoly on papal finances in Germany. When the Church needed funds in advance of her revenues, she borrowed at usurious rates from the sixteenth-century Rothschilds or Morgans. Indulgences were issued in order to replay the debts, and the Fuggers supervised the collection.

Knowing the role they would ultimately play, Albert turned to them for the initial negotiations. He was informed that the pope demanded twelve thousand ducats for the twelve apostles. Albert offered seven thousand for the seven deadly sins. They compromised on ten thousand, presumably not for the Ten Commandments.

It's true. Leo X was not exactly a saint. The first occupant of what came to be known as the "Chair of St. Peter" was a man who, when he first perceived who Jesus was, fell to his knees and cried out, "Lord, depart from me for I am a sinful man." A man who finished his course as a martyr. This kind of man.

As for Leo X, the man who occupied the Chair of St. Peter at the time of the Protestant revolt? Historian J.N.D. Kelly describes him as "a devious and double-tongued politician and inveterate nepotist." And that was on a good day. Another Reformation historian writes,

[Leo X was] as elegant and as indolent as a Persian cat. His chief preeminence lay in his ability to squander the resources of the Holy See on carnivals, war, gambling, and the chase [hunting].

In other words, he looked more like this:

There's no getting around it. It’s clear that the Church's hierarchy at that time was sick from top to bottom -- so sick that St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) advised good Catholics against going to Rome, lest they be corrupted. Whatever you do, unless you want your faith destroyed, don't go to Rome!

*****

Fine, tell me I'm exaggerating the situation.

But then explain the confession of Pope Hadrian VI, who immediately followed Leo X as bishop of Rome and served during the early events of the Reformation.

We know that for years there have been many abominable offences in spiritual matters and violations of the Commandments committed at this Holy See, yes, that everything has in fact been perverted…. The first thing that must be done is to reform the curia, the origin of all the evil.

If you need to, read it again. Notice the pope doesn't speak of minor missteps in spiritual matters. Rather he speaks of "abominable offences in spiritual matters and violations of the Commandments." He doesn't say that a few things here and there were out of order. He says, "everything has in fact been perverted." And then, notice he doesn't locate the source of the evil "somewhere over there." The woman you gave me, she made me do it! Instead he says "the origin of all the evil" was the "Holy See," the "curia," the Vatican leadership, the hierarchy.

Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc puts the final nail in the coffin:

No one can deny that the evils provoking reform in the Church were deep-rooted and widespread. They threatened the very life of Christendom itself. All who thought at all about what was going on around them realized how perilous things were and how great was the need of reform….Every kind of man would violently attack such monstrous abuses...

ConclusionThere are more historical and culture forces that could be listed and described, the rise of the middle class, for instance. But you do the math: The invention of the printing press leading to a rapid increase in literacy throughout Christendom and an explosion of new theological ideas, pamphlets, tracts, books (see Part I). The simultaneous rise of an educational philosophy that mocked the official doctors of the Church and emphasized going back to the Bible and the Fathers to read them with fresh eyes (see Part II). A growing emphasis on religion as something personal. Individualism and resentment of centralized authority in government as well as in the Church. Anti-papal sentiment on the rise throughout Catholic Europe (see Part III). And then... A Church in desperate need of spiritual and moral reform. Given all this, even though as a Catholic I view the Reformation as one of the saddest cases of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the history of the world, it doesn't surprise me that it happened. Not in the least. It would have taken a miracle not to happen.

The atmosphere was right. Luther struck the match with his attacks on Church abuses, which soon became attacks on Catholic teaching from top to bottom, and the explosion occurred. The Reformers rejected the idea that Christ had established a unified spiritual authority on earth (see What Was the Reformation?). In the process the Church was shattered and its visible unity has never been recovered.

It's time now to begin to look at the two doctrinal issues that form the heart of the reformers dispute with Church, the two doctrinal issues thatremain to this day the essence of the dispute between Protestantism and Catholicism.

I enjoy reading what you have to say but I am always particularly amazed at when people quote v2. Documents. What the documents say is that God can work and do anything he pleases. Not that anyone particular protestant sect has salvation in hand or any one particular catholic

Reply

Ken

3/24/2015 04:29:00 am

what do you mean by v2. documents?

Reply

INOCENTES R. BORNEA, JR

3/16/2015 10:43:15 pm

DIVISION OF THE CHURCH IS NOT THE ANSWER IN ANY PROBLEM. WE BELIEVE THAT PRAYER IS THE POWERFUL WEAPON. JESUS ESTABLISHED ONE CHURCH AND THAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. JESUS HAS AUTHORITY FROM HEAVEN, FROM HIS FATHER. NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH OTHER THAN CHRIST. JESUS CHRIST DID NOT AUTHORIZED ANYBODY TO ESTABLISHED A CHURCH OTHER THAN HIS OWN, IN WHATEVER PRETEXT. YOU CAN NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM INSIDE THE CHURCH IF YOU WILL GET OUT FROM THE CHURCH.

Reply

Ndomoh Ngang

3/16/2015 10:48:20 pm

I agree perfectly with your analysis. Two wrongs can never make a right.

Reply

Steve Kujawa

3/17/2015 02:57:33 am

Amen! One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Church!

Reply

Doug

3/17/2015 08:54:51 am

That's it?? We have to wait another week for the next 25 paragraphs?? This wait is worse than the commercial breaks during Mission Impossible. At this rate I'll be dead before Martin Luther.

Reply

Ken

3/24/2015 04:33:23 am

My sincere apology but a lot of work has fallen into my lap and I don't even have time right now to write the longer lessons. Just returned last night from six days in the Boston area speaking in churches.

Reply

John Peters

3/17/2015 05:39:33 pm

I am thoroughly enjoying these lessons. I've never heard any of this before in such detail. Thank you for making this so clear and so absorbing. I look forward to the next lesson.

Reply

Michael Kirunga

3/18/2015 05:13:55 am

There's no question that the church was in need of reform. The problem with the reformation, was that it destroyed church authority on faith matters. There is a direct relationship between authority and belief. This rejection of authority is therefore connected with modern day secularism.

I was particularly surprised and, yet, heartenex by reading that St. Ignatius of Loyola himself (who along with his Jesuits too a special vow to go wherever the Pope wanted them) told the faithful not to go to Rome because of the moral degradation there.